The Lorax - Review

Alright... we're over a week into 2013, and as you may have notice, I have not posted my picks of the Top 10 best and worst films of 2012. Why is that? To be honest, at the beginning of every year, this is usually when I'm playing catch up with the films I missed, trying to see as many of them as I can in order to make a reasonably accurate list. While that does mean taking in some good films every so often, (namely the studios' run of Oscar contenders), it usually involves watching the crap that I either missed, forgot about, or skipped... like The Lorax. When I heard that Universal was adapting The Lorax, one of Dr. Seuss's slightly lesser-known works, I actually thought that while it had the chance of working as a feature film, the studio would likely find a way to make it suck (spoiler alert.. the movie sucks). This isn't a huge surprise, as there have been multiple feature length adaptations of various Seuss books (both live action and animated), though not one of them has been any good (excluding the classic animated shorts, many of those are great). It boils down to many factors as to why, one of which is that stretching out a 20 page kids book to a feature length screenplay is incredibly difficult. While I will forever maintain that you can make a good movie out of anything, it takes great care and effort to pull off these kinds of stories... and there in lies the problem. The studio and filmmakers just never put any real effort or care into these stories... relegating the works of one of the most creative and flat-out brilliant kids authors into cheap, shallow, corporate-produced, Hollywood products (you know... the kind of thing this book preached against).

The film opens in the town of Thneed-Ville, a walled off, almost semi-dystopian, city completely made of plastic, with nary a tree or any kind of foliage in sight. In fact, since there's no trees, the town runs completely on synthetic air made by the town's ruling corporation, O'Hare, who sells it to the town's citizens. When the twelve-year-old, Ted (played by Zac Efron), hears his friend and crush Audrey (Taylor Swift) mention her longing to see a real life tree, Ted ventures outside of town limits to try and find one and impress his would-be girlfriend. His only hope is the fabled Once-ler, a man who lives miles away from Thneed-ville, whose surrounding area has now been relegated to a desolate wasteland. The Once-Ler then tells the story of how the land used to be a great forest, full of trees, animals, and fresh air... until it was ruined when he opened a business that quickly grew into a giant corporation and swiftly exploited the area's resources until there was no more. Both Ted and the Once-ler ponder... can the land return to it's once former glory???

One challenge I often encounter with this blog is trying to review a movie from a purely objective standpoint. While I do my best to not let my any personal bias, foreknowledge, or inherent fanboyism influence a review, that is often easier said than done. I mention this all because I happen to think that the book on which this movie is based is one of Dr. Seuss's best works and one of the most important children's books ever written. Okay, I admit that it has it's somewhat preachy undertones and a slightly simplistic and one-sided perspective on the issues of environmentalism and commercialism (I know it's a kids book, but still). That said, it had good concept that touched upon important issues, complete with a rather dark tone that still managed to retain Seuss's trademark rhymes and rhetoric. Not to mention, despite the dramatic subject matter, it still had a cautiously optimistic ending. To adapt such a book into a feature length film would be tricky, but when it comes to feature length movies based on kids books, I honestly think The Lorax was one of the more adapt-able pieces... at the very least,more-so than The Cat in The Hat or The Grinch. The simplistic nature of the message could have been expanded upon, and a good team of filmmakers could have told a compelling story of environmentalism and corporate excess, watered down enough for kids but also giving some substance for the adults. It could have been done well... but it was not.

Okay, so I'll just get this out of the way. How is the movie strictly as an adaptation of the book. In a word... TERRIBLE! While in the book, the Once-Ler's appearance was never revealed (aside from his hands), the movie gives him a face... one of a somewhat baby-faced and sympathetic demeanor (doesn't work). Even the book's main plot, about the Once-Ler's rise to power and subsequent devastation of the forest, is relegated to more of a subplot. Most of the book's content is actually told in a quick, three-minute musical number. Instead, it spends more time focusing on two different stories, one of which is a sort of "bro-mance" between the Lorax and Once-ler (it's weird, don't ask) and the other, I'll get into in a bit. The main character in the movie is actually the aforementioned Ted, who technically was in the book as the boy who listens to the Once-Ler's story. Still, they give him way more screen time, and there in lies the problem. Everything else that made the book so well-known is either gone or severely downplayed. It's an awful adaptation and it really has no reason to be this bad!

Of course, a film can't be strictly judged on how well it follows it's source material. The question of how the film stands on it's own... it still sucks. As I mentioned, the main story focuses more on Ted both subsequently trying to impress his would-be girlfriend Audrey and fighting with Thneed-ville's greedy corporate magnate, Mr O'Hare. The characters are bland, empty, and cliche, and the voice acting is, as predicted, nothing special. The only person who actually got a chuckle or two out of me was Betty White as Ted's eccentric grandmother, but that's Betty White for you, she's always awesome. The rest of the film, is just kind of annoying. The film spends way too much time with the cutesy animals of the forest, which wouldn't be a problem if they weren't annoying as hell. It really does hurt your film's message when the characters that are getting trashed are the one's who get on your nerves the most. It also has a few musical numbers, all of which suck. Honestly, even without the book to go off of, the movie is, at it's best, a below average cgi kids film that's too stupid and irritating to enjoy. The only real positive thing I can say is that some of the animation is nice, namely the design of the forest and Truffula trees. It's nothing amazing but it's at least a reasonably decent looking movie. Other than that, I don't have much to say.

So that's The Lorax... and it sucks. It may seem like I'm being a little harsh, trashing what's essentially an innocent kids movie. But still, despite any bias or strong opinions I may have, I just can't think of anything about this film that I can honestly recommend. It sucks, plain and simple. If you haven't seen it yet, don't bother.

My Score: 1.5 out of 5!

Django Unchained - Review

When it comes to finding quality movies these days, you've got to wonder if there is a more reliable director than Quentin Tarantino. It's pretty incredible when you think about it, not just that the guy has directed eight awesome movies (yes that includes Death Proof, I don't care what anyone says, Death Proof is a damn good tribute to 70s exploitation films and contains one of the greatest car chase scenes ever filmed), but rather that Tarantino has struck a chord with nearly everyone. Think about it, how many other filmmakers have been able to appeal to not only critics, but audiences everywhere ranging from film snobs, the blockbuster crowd, elitist hipsters, action junkies, and well... pretty much everyone short of the moral vanguards who have objected to the often violent and/or risqué content often found in his flicks. Why is that? Well, one can offer many theories, but what ultimately has made me remain such an enthusiastic fan (other than the fact that he flat out makes good movies) is what seems like a borderline psychotic obsession he has for the art of filmmaking. I would imagine (or at least I would hope) that all filmmakers have an immense passion for this medium, but Tarantino is a guy who has taken this love to the next level. Not only is he a self-proclaimed cinephile, but just by watching the dude's movies or seeing him being interview, it's plenty obvious that this is a guy who doesn't just love movies, but quite frankly, lives off of them. From sunrise to sunset, this is a guy who lives, eats, and breathes movies. That kind of passion and respect for this medium has resulted in one of cinema's most creative and prolific filmmakers who hones the skills of cinematic artists who have come before him and created his own unique voice and style that continues to entertain. So... with all of that said, how is his new film, Django Unchained?

As Quentin Tarantino's first true western, the film opens in 1858, with Django (played by Jamie Foxx), a recently sold slave being transported en route to Texas. His caravan is approached by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a dentist-turned-bounty hunter, who enlists the aid of Django in order to identify his next potential bounty. He promises Django that if he assists him with the bounty, he will receive a share of the profits as well as his freedom. Upon realizing that Django is naturally skilled in the field of bounty hunting, he takes him on as a full fledged partner for the winter bounties. Django only requests that after the season ends, that Schulz assists him in the rescue of his wife Broomhilda, who was sold to a  sadistic plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) who infamous for his pitting his slaves in brutal fights to the death. As the two plan their voyage into Candie's estate, nicknamed "Candie Land" (what else?), a land where racism runs rampant, Django and Schultz brace themselves for the horrors they are about to encounter.

Whether or not you approve of Quentin Tarantino's blatant audacity, you have to admit that the guy has serious balls for making a movie like this. Tarantino has often payed tribute to both blaxploitation flicks and spaghetti westerns, but I don't think he's ever done it quite to this extent. Django Unchained includes all of his expected trademarks, including his witty dialogue, established character actors giving eccentric performances, and shout-outs to classic flicks (the most obvious of which is the title and main character being a reference to the 1966 film Django). This one, while not quite reaching the same level of depth as say, Pulp Fiction, nonetheless features some poignant character beats reminiscent of his earlier movie Jackie Brown... along with the gritty violence of Reservoir Dogs and the over-the-top gore of Kill Bill. There has been more than a little controversy surrounding this flick, some regarding the extreme violence, some about the story's themes, and some about the use of the N-Word. I'm not going to get too in-depth with the film's controversial elements, but there is one thing on which I will comment. In this day in age, with race still being a touchy subject, it's almost impossible to make a race-driven movie without attracting some kind of controversy. So, while I acknowledge that it's a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation, there's just been a way-too-common trend of racially-driven films short-changing or sugar coating either it's messages or subject matter (The Help being a recent example). Django Unchained's take on slavery and racism may not be "sensitive" per se, but it definitely takes it seriously and portrays it for what it is... evil, nasty, brutal, disgusting, and flat-out horrific. Slavery an unfortunate stain on American history that many like to pretend never happened... only it did happen, and it was a period that was significantly darker than many probably would like to admit. Django Unchained doesn't skimp on that front, it's brutal and shocking from start to finish.

I would love to know just how Tarantino directs his actors, because this guy has a knack for finding the perfect casts and getting just the right performances. Jamie Foxx has shown on many occasions that he's a talent to be reckoned with, though he hasn't done anything particularly memorable since 2004 (the year of his double-whammy in Ray and Collateral). That all changes here, as he once again brings his top acting chops to the role of Django. He starts off as somewhat reserved, but goes with the flow of his developing character, releasing his anger and hate, as the former slave sets out for revenge, resulting in one of his most dynamic and deeply emotional performances to date. Christoph Waltz reunites with Tarantino after the two collaborated together in Inglorious Basterds (for which Waltz won an Oscar). Waltz, once again, brings his enigmatic talents to another solid role, not only driving the story and bringing some mystery to his character, but also adding some nice touches of comic relief to such a dark film. Both Foxx and Waltz have a good chemistry, and work well enough to keep the audiences invested and wanting to see what will happen next. They're a good duo that I think most will enjoy.

As good as Foxx and Waltz are, there is one performance that managed to rise above pretty much everyone else... and that is Leonardo DiCaprio as the despicable Calvin Candie. It's kind of funny to think that back in 1997, myself and a lot of others couldn't stand the guy after, despite giving a very average performance in Titanic, Leo-mania hit the world. That said, he's really made a name for himself after, in what could have been his 15 minutes, he continued developing his acting chops and choosing damn good roles. I'll admit that I've become a fan, and his performance here is really something to behold. He is arguably the best villain of the year, and DiCaprio just owns every minute he's on screen. He's such a nasty and dick of a villain, and DiCaprio just sells every ounce of the dude's worst qualities. I would like to see all three of these guys come out with Oscar nods, but as far as I'm concerned, if the Academy doesn't recognize DiCaprio for this... then they really need to get with the program. I won't dwell too much on the rest of the cast since that would take forever, though will say that they were all quite good, and that does include one of Samuel L. Jackson's more memorable roles in recent years.

Tarantino is such a master of the craft, that it seems kind of pointless to even mention the guy's direction. What can I say? The guy knows his stuff, inside out. Hell, I imagine the guy could probably direct a movie blindfolded and it would still be cinematic gold. Few directors have a knack for spot on cinematography, action scenes, witty performances, and film pacing. Even with a near 3-hour runtime, the film was so engaging that is just flew by. The action scenes are all damn-near perfect, with some of the best shootouts to hit the cinematic world in I don't know how long. In addition to being flat out thrilling and suspenseful, they're also bloody as hell, with the aforementioned buckets of blood that he's known for dishing out. The camerawork is beautiful, the editing is perfectly timed, the sets look great, the whole movie is just awesome. As I mentioned before, Tarantino just knows how to find that perfect balance of honoring classic films while incorporating his own vision to create a unique and visceral style. I can't really think of anything bad about this movie, only that it may not be for absolutely everyone. The over-the-top violence and edgy subject matter will no doubt be too much for some. For someone whose no stranger to on screen violence, I'll even admit that there were a couple scenes that kind of disturbed even me (I won't spoil which ones, but I think you'll know when you see them). But honestly, the movie is just that freaking great, plain and simple.

In the pantheon of Tarantino's filmography, this may not quite be his best (Pulp Fiction is going to be insanely difficult to top), but it's nonetheless another cinematic gem worthy of his past achievements. The great performances, memorable action, and insanely compelling story make this a very strong contender for best film of 2012. So unless you can't stomach your screen violence, all I can say is that Django Unchained is an absolute must see! Don't wait... go to the theater right now and check it out!

My Score: 5 out of 5!

Hitchcock - Review

I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised that it's taken this long to finally get a biopic made about Alfred Hitchcock, not only one of Hollywood's greatest artists but quite frankly one of filmmaking's most important innovators. He was (and still is) often nicknamed the "Master of Suspense." While that is most definitely true, I think even that kind of sells his talents short. You see, Hitchcock didn't only master the art of movie suspense, he pretty much created it, in the sense that he basically discovered the formula to consistently generating an emotional reaction from audiences. While his name has often been synonymous with the horror and thriller genres, the art of suspense isn't exclusive to any one genre, it's just a general concept to keep eyes glued to a screen, be it in a horror film when you're impatiently waiting for that masked killer to strike again, a thriller when a bomb in a building is less than a minute away from detonating, an action film where the hero and villain are fighting for their lives on the edge of cliff, or even a comedy when that clumsy main character just can't impress the parents of his would-be wife. Just about any kind of suspense beat (if it's well-done) is generally executed according to Hitchcock's methods and rules. Not only are his films and techniques being analyzed and studied in film schools across the world, his contributions to the art of film will forever echo across the silver screen. Yeah... as you can probably tell, I'm a HUGE fan of Alfred Hitchcock. So this film was kind of a big deal for me, and it's one for which I had pretty high expectations before seeing. How does it pan out? Let's take a look...

The film starts off at the premiere of Alfred Hitchcock's (played by Anthony Hopkins) 1959 classic, North By Northwest, where soon afterwords he starts searching for inspiration for his next film. When he comes across Robert Bloch's novel, Psycho, a story about a mother-obsessed psychopath (loosely inspired by the real-life murders of serial killer Ed Gein), he immediately decides that this will be his next movie. Despite backlash of the novel's violent content from everyone including the studio, producers, investors, and censors, he insists on making the film, going so far to even fund it out of his own pocket. His only real support is his dedicated wife, Alma Reville (played to perfection by Helen Mirren) who, despite her objections to the source material and a rocky relationship with her husband, stands by him and even assists in the production of the film (as she had done in most of his previous films). As production begins, controversy builds over the film's content and Hitchcock slowly starts loosing his mind attempting to execute such a risky and ambitious project while dealing with the increased stress of the strained relationship between him and Alma.

So despite my biases toward the real Hitchcock, the movie Psycho (which by the way is one of my all-time favorite movies), or horror movies and filmmaking in general, how does the film hold up? From a purely objective standpoint... it's good, but not great. It's got a great cast, solid production design, and includes some interesting tid-bits toward it's the man it's portraying as well as his influence plus some nice little shout-outs to his TV work. There's also a few shout-outs to some notable understated figures in Hollywood (Saul Bass, Bernard Herrmann, and others). It's unfortunately held back by an inconsistent tone, some predictable and formulaic story beats, and a lack of any real profound depth or insight into the Master of Suspense. While there's plenty to enjoy here, there's just no denying that for someone as important and interesting as Hitchcock, there's definitely something missing.

Had it not been for the cast selling the hell out of there roles, I doubt I'd be giving the movie any kind of recommendation. Anthony Hopkins was, by all accounts, a pretty damn awesome choice for the role of Hitch. While he wasn't exactly spot-on in the appearance department compared to the actual Hitchcock, they managed to get him looking fairly close to the real guy. At the very least, Hopkins manages to do a near uncanny impression of Hitchcock, getting his voice and mannerisms (at least how he presented himself on camera) down to a tee. The show-stealer, however, is none other than Helen Mirren as Alma Reville. Mirren always brings her A-game to her films, and this is no exception. She owns nearly every scene in which she appears, and at times even manages to upstage Hopkins (whose no stranger to stealing scenes) in some of the film's key moments. I think an Oscar nomination for Mirren as best supporting actress is all but guaranteed at this point. There are some other important figures and characters portrayed throughout the movie, but the film mainly keeps the focus on Alfred and Alma, so that's all I'm going to go into now. Though I will say that there were no bad performances, most were actually quite good, just not on screen long enough to make any real lasting impression.

The story is a bit of a mixed bag, which I have to admit is pretty disappointing. As I mentioned, for a man as important as Alfred Hitchcock and a movie as important as Psycho, you would really hope for something with a little more substance. What we get is essentially an account of the making of Psycho, and the troubles that entailed with a side story of Alfred and Alma's shaky marriage. The story about Psycho has some interesting moments, at times attempting to dive into the psyche of Hitchcock. There are a couple of scenes where he imagines interacting with Ed Gein (the real-life inspiration for Psycho's Norman Bates). These scenes are genuinely interesting and, along with some subtle hints of Hitchcock's obsessions with some of his actresses, really open up some doors for a creative and compelling character study about something like the psychological impact of the creative process or possibly the lengths of which an artist will go to accomplish one's vision. Unfortunately, in the end, all that is really revealed is that Hitchcock was an eccentric, slightly arrogant, and somewhat stubborn visionary fascinated by subjects like murder, crime, and the human mind's capacity for dark thoughts. To anyone whose seen a Hitchcock film or even two minutes of him being interviewed, that's not much of a revelation. In the end, it really comes down to the love story between Hitch and Alma, which is about as formulaic and predictable as they get. I will admit that's it kind of cool that they made Alma the unsung hero of the film. Hopefully she'll start receiving more credit for her work in her husband's films. Ultimately, the story is engaging enough I suppose, but it never has a solid grasp on it's tone or subject matter. At times it's a quirky comedy and times it borders on a psychological drama, and it just feels a little messy in the end.

Despite it's flaws, Hitchcock is definitely worth seeing. If you've got even a slight interest in Hitchcock's movies or film in general, then you'll probably find something to enjoy. At the very least, it's worth seeing for the great performances between Mirren and Hopkins, both of whom might come away with Oscar nominations. I saw it, I enjoyed it, and I think most will as well.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Flight - Review

Robert Zemeckis has to be one of the most under-appreciated directors working in Hollywood today. Even though the guy has won an Oscar and received acclaim for many of his films, he still rarely gets the credit he truly deserves. With the exception of film buffs, few people would recognize his name despite knowing the guy's filmography. Let's take a look at his work, Romancing The Stone (enjoyable movie), Back To The Future (excellent film), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (another excellent movie), Back to the Future II & III (very fun movies too), Cast Away (very impressive film), and his Oscar winning Forrest Gump (good movie but not his best). I imagine most people reading this have either seen or, at the very least, heard of those flicks yet I doubt many of you knew who was the director. Since Cast Away, however, Zemeckis' films haven't exactly been up to his usual standards, since he primarily left live action work to focus on directing motion capture cgi movies. His previous three directorial efforts, The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol polarized audiences and critics. Personally, I wasn't a huge fan of all three of them. They all had some interesting moments and some impressive bits of animation, but once the novelty of the mo-cap technology wore off, there just wasn't much about them that left any lasting impression. But now, Zemeckis finally returns to live action with the drama Flight starring Denzel Washington. Let's just say that it's great to see Zemeckis back making live action films!

Flight tells the story of Whip Whitaker, an airline pilot who may or may not have a drinking problem. After a night of binge drinking, he takes to the air piloting a flight with 102 passengers en route to Miami. Midway through the flight, the plane's mechanics begin to malfunction and starts to go into a dive. Through a series of crazy maneuvers, Whip miraculously manages to crash land the plane in an open field, saving 96 of the passengers on board. Hailed as a hero, Whip is taken to a hospital for treatment of minor injuries, but celebrations are cut short when his friend Charlie (who works for the airline) and hot-shot attorney, inform him that blood samples were taken at the site of the crash, and Whip's indicated high levels of alcohol. With possible charges of intoxicated flying and manslaughter (for the six people on board that died), Whip faces potential jail time (possibly life if he is found guilty) for the incident. As officials investigate the circumstances of the crash, Whip attempts to turn his life around but continually resorts to drinking to deal with the stress.

Movies with stories about subjects like alcoholism or substance abuse are tricky to pull off. On one hand, it's easy to indulge in cliche or formulaic plots and story beats, resulting in a film that's predictable and kind of dull. The other risk would be the possibility that the film would come off as preachy or proselytizing, something like a feature length DARE video (do they still do DARE in elementary schools? I remember being subjected to that crap for most of my grade school years). Some have managed the subject well (Requiem For A Dream and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are among the better takes), while others, not so much (Reefer Madness anyone). Flight, however, falls into the category of well-done takes on the subject. In addition to being a well-made character study about alcoholism and substance abuse, the film is also a compelling drama, mystery, and thriller that doesn't pull any punches but doesn't try to bombard you with preachy "say no to drugs" messages.

The film mainly scores from it's dynamic cast, led by the always excellent Denzel Washington. While it almost goes without saying these days that he's a great actor, sometimes it's easy to forget just how great of an actor Denzel Washington really is. With a growing list of increasingly stellar performances, it's next to impossible to rank all of his films and it's even harder to try and figure out where Flight fits into the roster, but I can fully say that it at the absolute least ranks among Denzel's finest performances and is all but guaranteed to pick him up yet another Oscar nomination (possibly even a win). While Denzel is no doubt awesome in this, that's hardly much of a surprise. Who did surprise me, however, was the performance of Kelly Reilly in the role of Whip's friend Nicole, a heroin junkie attempting to turn her life around. Despite being an established performer of the stage and screen, I wasn't familiar with most of her work (though I had seen her in the role of Mary Morstan in 2009's Sherlock Holmes), but she made a huge impression in this film. Her committed and deeply emotional performance, plus her natural chemistry with Denzel, was among the best in the film. I'm seriously hoping that the Academy recognizes her talent this year and includes her among the nominee list for Best Supporting Actress. I also have to mention John Goodman as Harling Mays, Whip's personal friend and drug dealer. Goodman is always a hoot to watch, and his goofy and enjoyable presence was a welcome addition here. Not much more to say really, it's a great cast and everyone does a solid job.

While it's the cast that really makes Flight soar (pardon the pun), the rest of the film's elements come together quite nicely. As I mentioned earlier, the film boasts a solid script that doesn't sugar coat it's subject matter but doesn't come off as in-your-face preachy either. The trailer had a fairly uplifting tone and came off like the film would be some kind of feel-good or touchy-feely flick, but in reality that couldn't have been further from the truth. It has a very dark and often depressing tone, really giving way to it's dramatic subject material and psyche of it's main character. It also benefits from Zemeckis' sure hand as a director, who once again steps up to the plate like a boss and does what he does best. Actually, for a director whose known primarily for directing special effects heavy blockbusters, this is one of his smaller and more sensible productions. Still, it's really a testament to a director where he can take a scene where the main character has to decide whether or not he's going to drink again and turn that into a white knuckle suspense trip... not to mention one of the most suspenseful plane crash scenes I've seen in recent memory. The only real complaint I have is that the film is a bit long, and a couple of scenes do tend to drag a bit. Plus, there was a somewhat odd subplot about God and spirituality that doesn't really go anywhere. Still, those are relatively minor complaints. Most of what we have here is pretty damn close to flawless. It's just that good of a film.

So that's Flight, and right now it's a very heavy contender for my favorite film of 2012 (gotta see a few more though before I compile the list). If you're looking for a brilliantly acted and compelling drama, this one should definitely do the trick. If it's still playing near you, check it out!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Skyfall - Review

One of the downsides of seeing as many movies as I often do is that it's taken some of the previous excitement I originally felt when going to see a new movie. Since I started this blog, I have often made it a point to see all the major releases but also found myself going out of my way to not-so-local theaters to see anything that I thought might be good, worthy, relevant, or important. As a result, going to the theater (while still an enjoyable experience, don't get me wrong) has become more "routine-like" most of the time. While there are some movies that do manage to get me hyped, it's becoming less-and-less frequent. Fortunately, if there's one series that always manages to bring back some of that previous movie-going excitement that I continually yearn for... it's James Bond. I'll just come out and say this, I have been a HUGE fan of this series ever since I was a kid! I love them all... or at least most of them, but even the few stinkers that occasionally come around haven't managed to decrease my absolute adoration for 007. Every time a new entry makes it's way into theaters, that giddy feeling of excitement and hype returns, and suddenly I'm as happy as a kid in a candy shop. This film, in particular, especially peaked my interest for two different reasons. First off, it's been over four years since 2008's Quantum of Solace and quite frankly that's a long time to go between 007 flicks. Secondly, Skyfall, the 23rd official Bond film and third to star Daniel Craig as the legendary spy, was directed by Sam Mendes, the Oscar winning filmmaker behind movies like Road To Perdition and American Beauty (which won for Best Picture in 2000). Does Skyfall live up, not only to it's hype, but also the legacy of this long-running series?

Skyfall opens with 007 in pursuit of a hard drive containing the secret identities of numerous MI6 agents. In the chase, Bond films himself on top of a moving train, fighting a henchman for the said drive, all while a fellow agent watches via a sniper rifle. Despite not having a clear shot, MI6 head M (once again played by Judi Dench) knowing full well that Bond could easily be killed, orders that the sniper take a shot at the henchmen. When the shot is taken, Bond is mistakenly hit. He falls from the train into the river below, and is declared Killed in Action despite actually surviving his fall. After months of staying off the radar, 007 returns to London after hearing of an attack on MI6 headquarters. M puts 007 back out in the field, informing him that the cyber terrorist that attacked MI6 may be a former agent with a vendetta against M and the British government. With his loyalty to M severely tested, the reluctant 007 nevertheless continues his search for the terrorist in the hopes of stopping him before he strikes again.

As much as I love this series, I have to admit that I have had some minor doubts about the direction the Daniel Craig films have been going. Don't get me wrong, I've actually liked the previous two flicks. Casino Royale was, by all accounts, pretty damn awesome while Quantum of Solace was flawed by still quite enjoyable. It also has nothing to do with Daniel Craig, whom is arguably the most memorable actor to play the character since Sean Connery (who still holds the title for best Bond) brought him to life in 1962. What concerned me was that there was this ever-present notion that the series would soon start giving way to diminishing returns and worse yet, that it was starting to lose focus of what's made the movies so awesome. I don't just mean the lack of gadgets, Q, Moneypenny, memorable henchmen, and campy villains (though they're definitely part of it), but rather that the realism-based direction the series was heading was ultimately turning the series into a line of generic run-of-the-mill action flicks while robbing the series out of the traits that made Bond... well, Bond. With all that said, I am happy to report that Skyfall has rediscovered that same degree of fun from classic 007 while still adding some of the more dramatic themes and character beats that made Casino Royale so effective. Hell, many have actually said that Skyfall might actually be the best film in the whole pantheon of 007. Personally... I'm not going to make that statement quite yet. I'll need to see it another time or two to properly rank it. Though if you are wondering, Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Goldeneye are my three personal faves. Nevertheless, Skyfall is a huge return to form, one of the better offerings of the series, and my personal favorite out of Craig's three films.

One thing I actually do applaud the Daniel Craig 007 films for doing is attempting to give Bond a dynamic character arc. While Bond has always been a fun character (and totally badass mind you), most movies in this series haven't exactly been strong in the way of theme and character development, though there have been exceptions (Goldfinger and On Her Majesty's Secret Service immediately come to mind). While the main plot for Skyfall doesn't immediately connect with it's predecessors in the same way that Quantum of Solace tied into Casino Royale, it nonetheless picks up on previous plot-points and themes, namely the mother/son-ish relationship between 007 and M. Bond questions his loyalty to M, as well as MI6, after M put him in harm's way and ordered him to make some sketchy decisions. His concerns are only exacerbated when he takes on the film's villain, Silva, a former agent-turned cyber terrorist with a (not entirely unjustified) vendetta against M. This particular story-arch ultimately drives the plot and culminates in a profoundly dramatic and suspenseful manner. I won't spoil exactly what happens, but I will say that it's hard not to be moved by how it all comes together. I will say that, aside for a handful of slow-ish scenes, the film moves at a good pace and rarely lets up. Add in some neat twists, solid exchanges between heroes and villains, interesting themes of modern vs old fashion tactics, and some legitimate character development, and you've got one of Bond's most memorable scripts.

Now we come to the cast, the area where Skyfall truly knocks it out of the park. This is Daniel Craig's third outing as 007, and while he's already had two strong performances under his belt, this time he really delivers. With a script that gives him the opportunity to truly explore the brooding and unstable psyche of Bond, Craig really puts his all into the role, giving way to his most memorable performance as the legendary spy. Judi Dench, who has become a pro at playing M after seven movies, once again delivers in the role. This particular film, however, gives her what is easily her meatiest role in a Bond film, resulting in some truly moving acting by Dench. The standout performer, however, has to be Javier Bardem as the villainous Silva. I am all but sure that Bardem will also go down as one of 007's most memorable foes. Taking inspiration from classic Bond enemies, Hannibal Lecter, and Heath Ledger's Joker, Bardem gives a memorably creepy, suspenseful, and moving performance as a man driven to villainy after suffering at the hands of MI6. There's been some early buzz about a possible Oscar nomination for Bardem (who previously won for No Country For Old Men), and unless the Academy is turned off by the fact that this is a 007 film, it's a definite possibility that he might be included on the ballot. As for the rest of the supporting cast, everyone is pretty solid. Ralph Fiennes has a small part as MI6 personnel Gareth Edwards yet still sells his role commendably. Q once again returns to the series (FINALLY!), only this time as a much younger character played by Ben Whishaw who is less of a gadget supplier and more of MI6's technological and security liason. I was originally a bit uncertain of this re-imagined portrayal of Q, but Whishaw sells the role, bringing all the classic Q traits, adding a bit of humor, and as an important figure in the plot. While Skyfall breaks slightly from tradition in that the Bond girl has considerable less screentime and impact on the plot, Naomie Harris nonetheless sells her role as Eve, who has a number of memorable scenes. All in all, Skyfall has a killer cast that never fails to impress.

With all that said, there's one more area on which a Bond film absolutely must deliver. That is, of course, the action. Sam Mendes has built a reputation in the industry primarily as a director of artsy dramas and character pieces. Prior to Skyfall, he had no action films in his filmography (that I know of anyways). Yet despite all that, he steps into Bond's world like an old pro, bringing some of the series' most exciting and flat-out amazing action sequences in recent memory. The opening scene in particular is arguably the best pre-title action sequence in the series, with an incredible chase and fight sequence. The finale is the other stand-out scene, with some white-knuckle suspense and one exciting payoff after another. The only thing that could have made them better would be if 007 had a few more gadgets to put to use this time around. With Q back in the series, I was hoping to see a little more on that front, and while he had a couple, there was nothing particular memorable. It's a minor gripe I admit, and I suppose they didn't want the tech to overshadow the main plot at hand. Maybe in the next film. Nitpicks aside, this is one hell of an action film, with one kick ass chase, fight, or shootout after another. If all you're expecting out of Skyfall is some well directed action, I can all but guarantee you will leave satisfied.

So that's Skyfall... and yeah it pretty much rocks! With the exception of a few minor nitpicks here and there, I can't think of too many things to complain about here. It's classic Bond action with a great cast and engaging script. Whether you're a Bond fan or not, this is a must see movie! Do not miss this one!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Star Wars... By Disney

Well... I have to admit that Wednesday's bit of news took me (and I think everyone else) by surprise. In a 4 billion dollar deal, Lucasfilm was purchased by none other than the Walt Disney Corporation and in doing so, announced the development of yet ANOTHER Star Wars trilogy (Episode VII is due in 2015). In retrospect, it probably should not have come as such a shock, considering how Hollywood still continues to milk the hell out of every remotely nostalgic movie, series, property they can get their hands onto though various remakes, reboots, and re- whatever.

Still, I think there was a sense that Star Wars, being considered something like the Holy trilogy of movies (well, at least the original three anyways), was untouchable for this kind of thing. Oh sure, there were rumors floating around years ago that George Lucas actually did have a basic story idea for Episodes 7-9, but he made it clearly over and over that the series was strictly a 6 part series and he had no intention of continuing his saga. That, however, isn't the most surprising part. See, what I think caught me off guard was the announcement that Lucas had sold his studio to Disney, effectively giving them creative control of not only the movies, but pretty much any Star Wars (and any Lucasfilm property like Indiana Jones) related product. Up until now, Lucas has guarded his beloved franchise like it was one of his own children and has constantly balked at the requests and demands of 20th Century Fox (the series' previous distributor) for anything Star Wars related, including, among other things, his refusal to release the original, non-special edition, trilogy on Blu Ray. For a filmmaker who built a reputation on refusing to let his properties fall into the hands of major studios/corporations, this is something I would have never seen coming. I guess that goes to show that, in this industry, nothing is sacred.

With all that said, what does this exactly mean for the Star Wars series, filmmaking in general, and it's future. Is it a good thing? Is this a terrible thing? Has Lucas succumbed to the dark side or has he actually returned to the light? Let's weigh out the pros and cons shall we?

The Light Side of the Force

- Disney

If we're going to look at the main reason Disney bought Lucasfilm, I think it's safe to assume that it was all about the money. The primary reason Disney bought Marvel four years ago was that they wanted to expand their market with a more boy-aimed property merchandise to correspond to their girl-centered Disney Princess brand, and I assume that Disney purchased Lucasfilm for, more or less, the same reasons. While everyone, myself included, was afraid that Disney would screw up Marvel's name and characters, so far they've done okay. The first Marvel Studios film financed by Disney was The Avengers... and it kicked ass! With Star Wars, I would think they would treat the series, and it's legions of fans, with the respect and attention it deserves. While Disney is by no means above milking the hell out of it's beloved franchises and characters for a couple quick bucks (as evidence by the barrage of straight to video Disney sequels), their track record of showing respect for their high profile blockbusters and franchises is pretty good. Not to mention that this is a company that's constantly been at the forefront of pioneering animation, memorable storytelling, and responsible for putting Pixar on the map... so there's always that. Will they give Star Wars the proper attention and care? Probably... hopefully... but like I said, no property is sacred so anything is possible.

- Limited involvement from Lucas

What's ultimately got me interested about this whole deal is that this might actually give Star Wars the shot in the arm that it needs. While I actually have an enormous respect for Lucas (I'll get into more of that later), I have to admit that without him managing everything, this might lead to good things. The prequel trilogy, while huge blockbusters, obviously didn't strike as much of a chord with audiences as the previous three films. Some audiences liked them, many hated them, others are in the middle, and practically none have preferred the prequels over the original Personally, I think Episodes 1-3 are entertaining if still very flawed. As many have stated, the prequels (particularly 1 and 2) are visually dynamic and interestingly conceived films complete with some great action, memorable visuals, and compelling mythology held back by problematic screenwriting, horrendous dialogue, and flat performances. I'm not going to write about exactly what went wrong with them here, namely since it's actually a bit tricky to pinpoint how they turned out the way they did, though I'll give some of my thoughts regarding the subject later on. Ultimately, for one reason or another, Lucas' direction and writing seems to have done more harm than good. I hate to say that since, like I said, I have such a respect for the guy, but there's no denying that minimizing his involvement in any future films might be for the better. Even when looking at the original trilogy, while A New Hope is by all means excellent, one might wonder if Empire and Jedi would have turned out as well as they did if Lucas spent his time in the director's chair for those. He came up with the basic story and probably had more than a little creative input in the production, but ultimately left most of the key decisions in the hands of directions Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand. So for any future flicks, this might be a good way to go.

- Han Shoots First Again

With Disney calling the shots at Lucasfilm, I can't help but wonder what that might mean for the previous films. Lucas has constantly denied fans requests for a DVD/Blu Ray release of an unaltered non-special edition Star Wars trilogy. Disney, on the other hand, has a reputation for being a money-grubbing company that would do just about anything for a profit. Normally, that's a bad thing, but if there's one company that would quickly bow down to the demands of audiences (if there's a profit to be made), it's Disney. So for all the fans who have clamored to see a Blu Ray with Han shooting first, Sebastian Shaw as Anakin's ghost, or a version of Jedi without Vader shouting "NOOOOO!" when killing Emperor Palpatine might finally get their wish.

The Dark Side of the Force

- Disney
Yeah I know that I just spent the last section talking about how Disney owning Lucasfilm might be a good thing, but I do have to admit that, like the force, there's a dark side to this deal as well. Lucas has, more or less, lived up to his reputation as a filmmaker who stays true to his vision and refused to sell out to those higher up. Yes, I admit that Star Wars is basically the definition a pop culture/merchandise phenomenon, and it certainly has made Lucas more money than most people can only dream of seeing. Regardless, Lucas has always taken control of his creations, stood by them, and often refused to let anyone else run them. While I don't necessarily agree with the changes he made to the original trilogy, his refusal to release the non-special edition trilogy on blu-ray, and some of the directorial decisions he made in the prequels, the fact that he's stood by his work, apologized to no one, and taken control of nearly everything is something that I can respect. By selling his properties to Disney... that's pretty much the very definition of a corporate sellout. Listen, I'm not anti-corporation or big business or anything like that, but to see a once-dedicated anti-sellout visionary like Lucas just hand off his possessions to the most corporate of corporations is kind of a bummer. Still, I guess Lucas did it for the right reasons. He wasn't just out to make money (he has plenty of it) as he's going to be donating most of the 4 billion dollars to charity. On top of that, Lucas is just done, he's been working with these properties for nearly 40 years and he's had enough and probably just felt that it was time to hand them off. So yeah, while the sell is not the end of the world, it's still a bit of a bummer... but it's one I can still mostly get behind.

- It's over... let it rest.

While this deal might just be crazy enough to work, one can't help but think of the bad that might come out of this. Someone asked me today if it would even be possible to make another good Star Wars movie. My answer, of course it's possible. You can make a good movie out of anything, and if the expanded Star Wars universe has taught us anything, it's that there are still plenty of good stories to be told. Ultimately, there's no way in telling what the film will be like until we see a trailer, a clip, or at the very least a plot synopsis. There's just that notion that up until now, the series was officially labeled as finished, done, completed... ie no more. I think most fans were just fine with that, myself included. Nobody asked for anymore movies and even those involved at Lucasfilm were seemingly content with that. So, my question is... why? The obvious answer is money, but surely there's cash to be made in the various Star Wars merchandise, toys, comics, novels, video games, cartoons... or maybe those long rumored live action TV shows that have been in development for years, eh Disney, *hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink*. There's just this nagging voice in my head that keeps saying that by making more films, they're just beating a dead horse. Shouldn't we lay this series to rest and let it be??? Yeah, probably, but that's clearly not happening.

- Lack of creativity and whatnot...

I already mentioned the oft-mentioned criticism concerning Hollywood and filmmaking today, that the industry has run out of ideas and that they're resorting to cranking out all the reboots, remakes, sequels, prequels, and spin-offs they can get their hands out in order to score some box office cash from the residual goodwill of the series' fans. While there are plenty of remakes and sequels that have surprisingly turned out to be quite good, I admit that it's more than a bit annoying to see so many movies remade and repackaged for modern audiences who don't like old movies (which is unbelievably sad). With Star Wars though, it's not just annoying, it actually saddens me a bit. For starters, Star Wars itself is pretty much the prime example of un-originality done right. The movies heavily borrow influence from sources like B-movie serials (namely Flash Gordon), Kurosawa Samurai flicks, spaghetti westerns, and epic fantasy... yet when combined they form something truly original and creative. If more films were to follow this formula as opposed to simply repackaging old sources, I doubt Hollywood would be in such a rut.

You see, the original Star Wars, in addition to being one of the best, is one of the most important films of all time. When it was released in 1977, Hollywood was in the midst of a creative renaissance and was giving unheard of amounts of creative freedom to untested up-and-coming directors, Lucas included, to make bizarre and incredibly ambitious personal auteur projects. Star Wars was such a strange project that even most of Lucas' film-school buddies (including Steven Spielberg Brian De Palma, and Francis Ford Coppola) didn't get it. When the film was finally released, not only did it push the boundaries of special effects, storytelling, and scope, but it fundamentally changed the business of how movies were made. Star Wars, along with Jaws released 2 years earlier, were such immense box office hits that they created the notion of the summer blockbuster, and it's formula is still going strong today. Even more than that, was ultimately what led to the production of the film.

I mentioned earlier that I'm not exactly sure what led to the prequels becoming so lackluster compared to it's predecessors but I know exactly what made the first Star Wars so successful... effort and vision! When George Lucas pitched Star Wars to 20th Century Fox, the project was so out there and ambitious, that it barely got green-lit by the studio. Production was a disaster, as filming was being plagued by bad weather, malfunctioning props, unsuitable special effects, and a cast who had lost faith in the project. Lucas, being committed to his vision poured his heart and soul into the project, determined to finish the movie and still deliver a quality flick. Through hell and high water, the movie was finished, and turned out to be a bigger success than anyone, especially Lucas, could have predicted. As an aspiring filmmaker myself, this is something I can appreciate and admire. The story of an ambitious young filmmaker, tackling a radical idea, doing what he loves, pushing the boundaries of a medium, and coming out successful after going through hell to get there is inspiring. Say what you will about George Lucas, but what he did to get his movie into theaters is something all nerds need to appreciate. Sure, the Star Wars prequels and Indiana Jones 4 didn't quite live up to the standards set by their predecessors, but what Lucas did to achieve his dreams and see his vision to the end is inspirational. This is what's missing in films today folks... George Lucas-like vision and dedication. In an industry plagued by remakes, reboots, sequels, and whatnot, we need another visionary like George Lucas to get us out of this rut. I'm talking about one who has a unique outlook on film, someone who adores the medium, where's it's been, and knows how to move it in the direction of where it's future can lead. While I'm sure those who end up directing the new Star Wars film will be perfectly serviceable filmmakers (and hopefully a fan of the series), I find it hard to believe that another Star Wars sequel will do anything to move this medium forward or deliver anything truly creative and/or different like the originals did (though anything is possible). We need studios green-lighting fresh and interesting ideas as opposed to reboots. More than that, we need the visionary filmmakers to sign onto them and make them a reality... only then will we be out of this originality rut.

Finishing Up
Okay, so despite all the pros and cons of what this deal means, how do I feel overall? Honestly, consider me cautiously optimistic. All my gripes and complains about selling out and unoriginal thinking are there, but I can't silence that stupid little nerd that lives in my brain constantly shouting "YAY!!! THREE MORE STAR WARS MOVIES!!!" So yeah, despite my concerns... I'm excited. There's a lot of potential with Disney calling the shots, and with the right team maybe, JUST MAYBE, we'll have three great films to look forward to. So Disney and whoever else will be working on the new films, all I can say is "May The Force Be With You."

Paranormal Activity 4 - Review

Well... it's October, and that means another entry in the popular Paranormal Activity horror series has made it's way to theaters. As a self proclaimed movie geek and horror buff, I have to admit that I feel a tiny bit ashamed that I've liked this series as much as I have. I know the franchise has been fairly popular and that the movies have all been big hits, but there's no escaping that this is a franchise based on a ridiculously gimmicky premise (but let's face it, most found footage movies are) that never lent itself to sequels or an expanding universe. With that said, there was something about this series that kept me coming back. Namely, while none of the films have risen above their inherent gimmick per se, the first three movies at least managed to create some legitimate suspense, shocks, and jump scares resulting in fun and enjoyable horror flicks well-suited for the Halloween season. Does the fourth entry live up to it's predecessors? Let's find out...

***Here's my little disclaimer, while I won't spoil any important plot details for this movie, I will discuss the endings of the previous three films. Don't say I didn't warn you.***

Paranormal Activity 4 takes place approximately five years after the epilogue of the second entry (can you believe that this is the first, honest-to-God, sequel to a PA movie). This film focuses primarily on the Nelson family, namely the 14-year-daughter of the household, Alex Nelson (Kathryn Newton), and her goofy, though good-natured, boyfriend Ben (Matt Shively). The Nelsons live next door to none-other than Katie Featherston who, when we last saw her, was left possessed by a vicious demon that forced her to kidnap her then-infant nephew to presumably fulfill a decades old pact made by her grandmother (a member of a witch coven). When Katie is inexplicably rushed off to a hospital, the Nelsons take in her six-year-old son, Robbie, a socially awkward boy with odd and often creepy idiosyncrasies. While Robbie makes quick friends with Alex's six-year-old brother Wyatt, strange and unsettling seemingly paranormal disturbances begin to occur. Alex, unnerved by what's happening, rigs the families' computers to record any unusual activity. What she discovers may end up being more than she can handle, as the disturbances continue to escalate.

Before I get into my thoughts on this particular film, I'll quickly run down what I thought of it's predecessors. The first film, I really enjoyed. While it was held back somewhat by a low budget and less-than-spectacular acting, it nevertheless scored thanks to it's great suspense, memorable shocks, interesting twists, and surprisingly effective special effects. Part 2 improved on some fronts, namely that the bigger budget allowed for some more dynamic scares plus an improvement on the acting front. On the downside, in revealing more of the story, it left less to the imagination and removed some of the previous flick's suspense and mystery. Part 3 had many of the same problems of the second all while falling victim to an increasingly more predictable formula. Not to mention, it answered few of the unanswered questions from it's predecessor and had a frustratingly abrupt ending. That said, it still managed to deliver on the requisite scares, namely in the better-than-expected finale... so it met the bare minimum of what I wanted to see. Part 4 on the other hand... that's another story. It's really nothing short of a miracle that such a thin premise had been able to remain effective for three movies, so for one to finally fall short of expectations shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Unfortunately, this is a series for which I think most don't exactly have "high expectations," so when it's unable to live up to such low standards, that's pretty disappointing.

One of my biggest gripes about the third entry was that, despite the lingering questions left unanswered after Part 2, it basically sidestepped it's cliffhangers and instead left many of it's questions to be answered in the following sequels. I was actually looking forward to this film for this reason, as I was genuinely curious to see how events would unfold. Unfortunately, it appears that the producers are planning to milk a few more sequels out of the franchise. Few, if any, of the previous films' plot points are addressed, and instead Paranormal Activity 4 answers it's predecessor's lingering answers with... more questions. I get that these films are popular, and the low budget makes them usually safe bets for the studio, as the profit margins on the ticket sales have fared pretty well so far. That said, given the increasing diminishing returns these sequels keep producing, I can't help but think that by the time they do eventually pull the plug on the franchise, they will have alienated their fanbase to a point that everyone will have just stopped caring. Hopefully that won't happen, but I'm not counting on it.

I remember stating in my review of Part 3 that the filmmakers were going to need to think of a really creative way to keep this series interesting if it was going to stay fresh. Unfortunately this film is, as predicted, weighed down by the increasingly duller and more predictable formula. By now, it's all become routine. The series has always had the typical flaws of most found footage movies, namely the questionable logic of it's characters, cheap look, and hit-and-miss decisions on camera movement. In the past, I was generally willing to overlook most of those problems so long as the movie delivered the expected scares and jumps. In this film, that's the main problem, it's just not that scary. For every decent jump or jolt, there's about ten failed attempts, plus numerous set ups for some potentially awesome payoffs that end in the most anti-climactic way possible. The filmmakers did try to change up the formula a bit by adding a creepy kid subplot a la The Omen, but that just did more harm than good. It's a routine formula that doesn't add much suspense and only leads to a fairly predictable plot twist that, as expected, simply raises more questions than it answers. If the studio wants to keep this series going, they're really going to have to deliver with the next sequel (wait, doesn't this sound familiar).

So... was there anything I liked in this movie? I'm having a hard time thinking of anything "good" about the flick but rather simply thinking of things about it that are simply okay. The cast, namely Kathryn Newton and Matt Shively, were clearly giving the film their best shot and manage to bring forth some passable performances, just nothing particularly special. As for the special effects... they're not bad either, but nothing that we haven't seen already. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of any particularly memorable effects sequences from the film. It's odd thinking that the original film (with a mere budget of 15,000 compared to Part 4's budget of 5,000,000) was more memorable on the effects front. I suppose there were a few decent scares, as I mentioned earlier, including one particularly suspenseful scene that I won't spoil but will say that it takes place close to the end. If there had been more of that, this would have been a much more effective movie. It's too bad, lots of potentially decent setup ruined by mediocre execution.

So that's Paranormal Activity 4... and it kind of sucks. If you were a fan of the series, this will probably be a huge disappointment. If you weren't a fan of the series, this won't change anything. For those looking for a decent scary flick to see this Halloween, don't see this one. Instead, check out the movie Sinister, which came out a few weeks ago. Though I haven't written a full review yet, Sinister is a much better made film with more effective scares, performances, and direction. In other words, basically what this film should have been. Let's hope when Paranormal Activity 5 comes out (it's unavoidable) that the filmmakers will try to breathe some new life into this series.

My Score: 2 out of 5!